§Why CasetextPricing

BOLING v. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD

Petitioners’ Answer Brief on the Merits

52 Cited authorities

  1. Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization

    19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 640 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “administrative interpretation ... will be accorded great respect by the courts and will be followed it not clearly erroneous”

  2. Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn

    11 Cal.3d 28 (Cal. 1974)   Cited 483 times
    Holding that the standard applies equally to review of local and statewide agencies

  3. Amador Valley Jt. Un. High Sch. v. State Bd. of Equal

    22 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978)   Cited 409 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that although initiative measure's title and summary were technically imprecise, they substantially complied with the law

  4. Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control District v. California Public Employment Relations Board

    35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 188 times
    Holding that only a prospective application of the administratively prescribed statute of limitations such that the limitation period "commences on the effective date of the statute, rather than on the date the cause of action accrued" would be fair

  5. DeVita v. County of Napa

    9 Cal.4th 763 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Describing Simpson as concluding that "the initiative and referendum power could not be used in areas in which the local legislative body's discretion was largely preempted by statutory mandate"

  6. Vargas v. City of Salinas

    46 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 130 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16, "extends to statements and writing of governmental entities and public officials on matters of public interest and concern that would fall within the scope of the statute if such statements were made by a private individual or entity"

  7. Coalition v. City of Upland

    3 Cal.5th 924 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 80 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that we must resolve doubts about the initiative power in its favor and "narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power"

  8. Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore

    18 Cal.3d 582 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 256 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state law, which required any ordinance changing zoning or imposing specified land use restrictions can be enacted only after noticed hearing before the city's planning commission and legislative body, does not apply to initiative enacting same type of ordinance

  9. Santa Clara County Counsel Attorneys Assn. v. Woodside

    7 Cal.4th 525 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 153 times
    Determining that California's conflict of interest statute did not preclude a wage and hours suit by county attorneys against their public employer

  10. Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson

    11 Cal.4th 1243 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 115 times
    Rejecting Legislature's stated claim that a statute merely clarified the scope of an initiative

  11. Section 5

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 5   Cited 241 times
    Allowing "city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs . . . ."

  12. Section 3

    Cal. Const. art. XI § 3   Cited 93 times

    (a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter

  13. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. II § 11   Cited 63 times

    (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter. (b) A city or county initiative measure shall not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage

  14. Section 32603 - Employer Unfair Practices Under MMBA

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32603   Cited 9 times

    It shall be an unfair practice for a public agency to do any of the following: (a) Interfere with, intimidate, restrain, coerce or discriminate against public employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by Government Code section 3502 or by any local rule adopted pursuant to Government Code section 3507. (b) Deny to employee organizations rights guaranteed to them by Government Code section 3503, 3504.5, 3505.1, 3505.3, 3507.1, 3508(d) or 3508.5 or by any local rule adopted pursuant

  15. Section 32410 - Request for Reconsideration

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32410

    (a) Any party to a decision of the Board itself may, because of extraordinary circumstances, file a request to reconsider the decision within 20 days following the date of service of the decision. The request for reconsideration shall be filed with the Board itself in the headquarters office and shall state with specificity the grounds claimed and, where applicable, shall specify the page of the record relied on. Service and proof of service of the request pursuant to Section 32140 are required.

  16. Section 32016 - Definition of Terms Under MMBA

    Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 32016

    As applied to matters arising under MMBA: (a) Public agency. "Public agency" means every governmental subdivision, every district, every public and quasi-public corporation, every public agency and public service corporation, every town, city, county, city and county and municipal corporation, whether incorporated and whether chartered or not. For purposes of these regulations, the term "public agency" shall exclude the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and superior and municipal courts

  17. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  18. Rule 8.71 - Electronic filing

    Cal. R. 8.71

    (a) Mandatory electronic filing Except as otherwise provided by these rules, the Supreme Court Rules Regarding Electronic Filing, or court order, all parties are required to file all documents electronically in the reviewing court. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2020.) (b)Self-represented parties (1) Self-represented parties are exempt from the requirement to file documents electronically. (2) A self-represented party may agree to file documents electronically. By electronically filing any